Irish Question, No. 17.] OPINIONS OF EMINENT LIBERAL AUTHORS. MR. J. S. MILL ON HOME RULE. " It is my conviction that the separation of Ireland from Great Britain would be most undesirable for both, and that the attempt to hold them together by any form of federal union would be unsatisfactory while it lasted, and would end either in reconquest or in com- plete separation. " For generations it is to be feared that the two nations- would be either at war or in a chronic state of precarious and armed peace, each constantly watching a probable enemy so near at hand that in an instant they might be at each other's throat. By this state of their relations it is> almost superfluous to say that the poorer of the two coun- tries would suffer most. To England it would be an incon- venience ; to Ireland a public calamity, not only in the way of direct burthen, but by the paralysing effect of a general feeling of insecurity upon industrial energy and enterprise. " Let it not be supposed that I should regard either an absolute or a qualified separation of the two coun- tries otherwise than as a dishonour to one and a serious misfortune to both." "England and Ireland." By J. S. M,.: MR. GOLDWIN SMITH ON HOME RULE. "The words of a very true Liberal and a most accomplished man who has lived a great deal in the United States and in Canada/' — Earl Selborne, at Alton, May 5, 1886. " The rupture of the Legislative Union and its inevitable sequel, the carving of a hostile Irish Republic out of the flank of the United Kingdom, would, as we believe, be fatal to the power and greatness which are the common heritage of our whole race. We shall bow our heads in shame unutterable, and be unable again to look a foreigner in the face, if Mr. Gladstone or any one else succeed in persuading Jec.97~"/t&y the nation to commit so foul, so dastardly, and at the same time so suicidal a crime as the abandonment of the Loyalists of Ireland." April, 1886. MR. W. E- H. LECKY ON HOME RULE. " To establish a Home Eule Parliament in Ireland at present would be simply to give legislative powers to the National League. . . . He did not know whether a National League Parliament would be set up or not, but if it was it would not last. It might be sur- rounded by limitations, but sooner or later they would be swept away by a declaration of rights, for which there was an abundance of precedents in Irish history.. After the establishment of such a Parliament the Irish Question would become more intolerable than e*er. Give Homo Rule and we must go further— either forwards to absolute separation, or backwards probably to the destruction of all Parliamentary represen- tation; and whatever course -was taken, it would pr be accompanied by bloodshed. Great nations could humiliate themselves with impunity. If we OTUXexuL the government of Ireland to rebels, it wouM become known throughout Europe that the, old imperial spirit of England had passed, that the days of tike Em] were numbered, and that the handwriting was already the wall." S})cech at Kensington, Menrh 17, 1SJ66. MR. MATTHEW ARNOLD ON HOME RULE. ■;• A separate Parliament for Ireland is Mr. Gladstone'* irreducible minimum. Ireland is a nation, says Mr. Panu U menacingly, Mr. Stansfeld gushingly ; a nation should have its national Parliament. " Ireland has been a nation, a most unhappy one. Wales, too, and Scotland, have been nations. But politically, they are now nations no longer, any one of them. This country could not have risen to its present greatness if they had been. Give them separate Parliaments, and you begin, no -doubt, to make them again nations politically ; but you i>egiii also to undo what has made this country great." Letter to the " Times;' May 22, 1886. Published by the Liberal Committee for the Maintenance oi Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, 35; Spring Gardens, S.>V.